PETA's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad History of Killing Animals - Atheist Nexus2016-12-10T01:53:27Zhttp://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/peta-s-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-history-of-killing?groupUrl=humaneatheists&xg_source=activity&feed=yes&xn_auth=noI think I will look into buyi…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-03-16:2182797:Comment:18893442012-03-16T19:39:25.990ZSteph S.http://atheistnexus.org/profile/StephS
I think I will look into buying the book .. Looking interesting. Glad you like!
I think I will look into buying the book .. Looking interesting. Glad you like! Thanks for the link to the bo…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-03-16:2182797:Comment:18893382012-03-16T19:27:26.799ZSandihttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/Sandi
<p>Thanks for the link to the book, I read the first few pages and am very interested in the subject. The food 'system' is one of controversy of late, genetically modified foods, pink slime. Eating can be scary.</p>
<p>I look forward to downloading the book and reading more.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Thanks for the link to the book, I read the first few pages and am very interested in the subject. The food 'system' is one of controversy of late, genetically modified foods, pink slime. Eating can be scary.</p>
<p>I look forward to downloading the book and reading more.</p>
<p></p> There are few ways more likel…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-03-16:2182797:Comment:18889932012-03-16T17:42:20.750ZDaniel Wachenheimhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/Daniel57
<p>There are few ways more likely to get people riled up than a mention of PETA. It's hard to know. Certainly, a high percentage of euthanasias undercuts their credibility. There was a rebuttal to the article as well. I wil need to read that then get back to here.</p>
<p>There are few ways more likely to get people riled up than a mention of PETA. It's hard to know. Certainly, a high percentage of euthanasias undercuts their credibility. There was a rebuttal to the article as well. I wil need to read that then get back to here.</p> I did a little reading on thi…tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-03-16:2182797:Comment:18887562012-03-16T07:07:35.151ZAaron S. (USA)http://atheistnexus.org/profile/Aaron13
<p>I did a little reading on this before and from what I gathered, the 2.5% figure for PETA is the very lowest it had and the 44% figure by the Virginia shelters was an all-time high, with average figures closer to double or triple that for PETA and half that for the Virginia shelters. (Those figures may be a bit off since it's been a while since I did the research and I tend to misremember details, but I think the point stands that they're comparing PETA's worst with other shelters' best.) I'm…</p>
<p>I did a little reading on this before and from what I gathered, the 2.5% figure for PETA is the very lowest it had and the 44% figure by the Virginia shelters was an all-time high, with average figures closer to double or triple that for PETA and half that for the Virginia shelters. (Those figures may be a bit off since it's been a while since I did the research and I tend to misremember details, but I think the point stands that they're comparing PETA's worst with other shelters' best.) I'm not entirely sure why, of all the shelters in the USA, they only used the figures for the ones in Virginia, either - and as the article itself admitted, PETA is fairly unique in having a no-turn-away policy and being on the front lines when natural disasters occur, so you'd assume their shelters would kill more animals with other variables being similar.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I hate to sound like a PETA shill (one friend I talked to about the issue stated that I sounded like a member of the Church of Scientology), but I just don't see where the controversy is coming from. I don't normally consider myself especially pro-PETA, but articles like this are just comparing apples and oranges and I don't feel like you can take a strong position. I don't see the data being gathered in a consistent, objective fashion anywhere in the article (most often it'll pick the most extreme examples it can find and then extrapolate off of that as though it were the average), so it's hard to draw a sharp conclusion. Maybe they do have a point and PETA is being hypocritical on this issue, but they're not going to prove that case with the data they're presenting here.</p>
<p></p>